Applications of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Electronic Medical Records: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) are central to the modern healthcare system. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), have opened new opportunities for the advancement of EMRs. This scoping review aims to explore the current real-world applications of GenAI within EMRs to support an understanding of AI applications in healthcare. A literature search was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, up to 28 October 2024, using a peer-reviewed search strategy. Overall, 55 studies were included. A list of five themes was generated by human reviewers based on the literature review: data manipulation (24), patient communication (9), clinical decision making (8), clinical prediction (8), summarization (4), and other (2). The majority of studies originated from the United States (35). Both proprietary and commercially available models were tested, with ChatGPT being the most commonly referenced LLM. As these models continue to be developed, their diverse use cases within EMRs have the potential to improve patient outcomes, enhance access to medical data, streamline hospital workflows, and reduce physician workload. However, continued problems surrounding data privacy, trust, bias, model hallucinations, and the need for robust evaluation remain. Further research considering the ethical, medical, and societal implications of GenAI applications in EMRs is essential to validate these findings and address existing limitations to support healthcare advancement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".